Exegesis on Luke 2:21

It was recently put to me in a Facebook conversation most of you probably saw from my post on June 6 at 8:13 am, to address some key doctrinal claims of Mormonism. It is my assertion that Mormonism is essentially not Christianity. In an effort to be completely transparent I will let all my readers know at the outset that I believe Mormonism to be a complete misrepresentation of the Christian Bible. Likewise, I believe the Book of Mormon, as well as supporting texts like the Pearl of Great Price, to be heretical and simply unhelpful and confusing to a correct understanding of the Christian Bible. All Mormon texts are decidedly NOT God’s word. The proceeding commentaries will be proof of my statements.
For the purpose of promoting understanding we must first define a few things. Within the bounds and context of this writing, when I refer to anything as Christian, I mean not Mormon. That is not to say I am also referring to all things not Mormon, but the distinct differences between Mormonism and Christianity. As is necessary with Biblical exegesis (drawing the meaning from scripture, as opposed to imposing meaning upon scripture), the reader must keep in mind the definitions I have presented above while reading, since it is I who determine the meaning of my words, not the reader. The same is true with scripture. It is the original writer who determines the meaning of the words written, not the reader. With that, let’s get started looking at the correct meaning and analysis of Luke 2:21.
Verse 21 of the second chapter of Luke actually starts back in Genesis 17:10 where God tells Abraham to circumcise all male children eight days or older, whether they were biological children, foreign born, or slaves. All males amongst the people of Israel were to be circumcised. In Luke 2:21 we see Jesus’ parents adhering to this command. The scripture says, “And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child.” This calls attention to Jesus’ Jewish heritage and initially sets the stage for Jesus’ blamelessness. Even at this tender early age Jesus was being molded as the unblemished lamb. Had he not been circumcised, Jesus certainly would have been in violation of the covenant made between Abraham and Yahweh in Gen. 17:10. This covenant was given by command from God and therefore, any defiance of that command would carry the title of transgression. Transgression is called also by the name sin. We see here that even as early as eight days after his birth Jesus was sinless. He was certainly sinless for the eight days before this but here we come across evidence that Jesus remained sinless, as he did for the remainder of his life.
After this we see that scripture says “his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.” There is a lot going on in this verse so stay with me as we discover the only possible meaning of this verse.”
First we read “his name was called JESUS.” This is the name Iesous which is Greek for Jesus, Joshua (referencing the Old Testament Joshua whose name in Hebrew [Yehosua] translates into English exactly the same way as the Greek Iesous), all of which are literally translated to English as “Yahweh saves.” It is no accident that this name appears throughout scripture. It is specifically given to Jesus as a name by the angel Gabriel who spoke to Mary as referenced in Luke 1:31. In this verse, God sends Gabriel to tell Mary to name her baby Jesus, or “Yahweh saves.” The angel would also be the announcer of the baby. Not the deliverer, but merely the announcer. By Gabriel’s own words recorded in Luke, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” By the full force of God’s power, Mary now had a child in her womb, having never experienced sexual activity. So we see here that God gave Mary a baby and gave her the name. We know that the name came before Jesus was placed in her womb because Gabriel gave her the name first; only after she asked “how shall this be” did Gabriel tell her how it would happen. Never are we told exactly when Mary became pregnant. The story in Luke immediately goes to Mary visiting Elizabeth, at which point it seems to be assumed that Mary is already pregnant. Either way it was certainly after the proclamation of the boy’s name.
So here we see the plain truth of these verses. God, through Gabriel, gave Mary the name Jesus for her child, as well as impregnated her, in the same manner as Elizabeth and Zachariah were given the name of their baby, though Zachariah was the biological father in that situation. The past tense nature of the “before he was conceived in the womb” statement simply refers to the pronunciation of Jesus’ name when given to Mary by Gabriel.
You may be asking yourself “what does this have to do with Mormon doctrine?” Our verse is a verse cited by a Mormon friend of mine to support the existence of spirit children, existent with god before the creation of the world. I pray I am accurate to the Mormon doctrine here as I would hate to misrepresent all Mormons. In this doctrine we find that all of us, including Jesus, were existent before creation, with god, as his spirit children. This would, in a way, make Jesus the half-brother of Satan, according to Mormon doctrine. I say according to Mormon doctrine because it is nowhere present in the Bible. Luke 2:21 is cited as one proof text of this, though there are supposedly more. The question here has to do with what exactly “before” means. Since the Greek form of this word (pro) simply carries a relative sense of time, as in “before I got in my car”, we all can see how this could be confusing if we were the ones determining the meaning of the words written here. Also, since “before” is non-descript in and of itself, we need to look somewhere else for what the author really means. When we read “before”, we logically ask “when?” The answer to this question is rightly found in the text itself, which is not limited to this verse, but the entire text of Luke. Within the construct of that context, it is entirely inappropriate and illogical to deduce that the author is saying “before creation.” The creation of the world at no time enters into this text as we have read thus far, so why would a reader assume that is what is meant by “before”? More plausible a meaning for “before” here would be “when Gabriel told Mary.” Even the grammar of this verse refers to the past tense as that time when the angel gave the name Jesus to Mary for her baby in verse 1:31. Let’s look at the grammar:
“which was so named”; who was so named? Jesus. Who named him? “the angel” (though it should be said that the context of verse 1:31 implies that God named the baby and the angel only delivered that name). When did the angel name him? “before he was conceived in the womb.” The angel of verse 1:31 did not give the name before creation, but right then and there, face to face with Mary, at that point in time, after creation. Mormons would mistakenly point out that God may have given the name before creation as 1 Peter 1:19-20 seems to imply. However, the statement of 1 Peter is something entirely different than what we have been dealing with here and is not contextual to this matter and therefore confuses the issue. If you are Mormon I will not expect you to take my word for it. As I have done here, I will also do with Jeremiah 1:5, as well as 1 Peter 1:19-20. So, as it was put to me…“you don’t have to agree, but if you sincerely want to learn more just be patient.”
What I have presented here is not my own words but an analysis of the words already in scripture. The truth is plain. If you are open-minded, and not bound by your own human tradition, you will see that the Mormon tradition absolutely CAN NOT be accurate as the text clearly does not support such imaginative interpretation. The book of Mormon is also not synergistic with the Bible in this area and therefore stands at odds with the revealed word of God. It logically follows that the Mormon texts ARE NOT the word of God, for God does not contradict himself.
It is also worth noting that what I have presented cannot be taken as “an” interpretation, as if to imply there is another way to apply these verses. This train of thought is exactly what leads to misinterpretation and the distorting of the truth. There is only one meaning, unless the author intended his words to have more than one meaning.
I am praying for the Mormons reading this right now. It is a frightening thing to come into the presence of the God of scripture. It is all the more frightening to know you have stood in stark contrast to His word. The truth of scripture comes with force and cannot be ignored. Study well, and know God.